coffee.geek.nz

EU Parliament tells USA's USTR it will not participate in secret treaty negotiations and calls for public release of ACTA documents.

The EU voted 663:13 in favour of the following:

1. Reminds that the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations;

2. Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations which contradicts the letter and the spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base has been established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that no parliamentary approval has been asked for the mandate;

3. Calls on the Commission and Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries in accordance with the Treaty and the Regulation 1049/2001 on Public Access to Documents;

4. Calls on the Commission and Council to pro-actively engage with ACTA partners to rule out any further negotiations of an a piori confidential nature and to timely and entirely inform Parliament about its initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals already prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010 and to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting, and to refer to Parliament the outcome of this round immediately after its conclusion;

70 percent of Americans are in favour of gay men and lesbians serving in the military.

The same poll found that only 59 percent of Americans are in favor of homosexuals serving in the military.

ummmm... yeah.

The Poll by CBS/NYT

It's all in the language you use. Washington Post takes the angle that Gay and Lesbian are seen as lifestyles, and Homosexual is still seen as a clinicial word once used to label an illness - hence this result.

Others note that "homosexual" has "sex" in there, also influencing the result. Love and life is fine, sex is something they want to stop. I wonder how many are in favour of heterosexuals serving in the military....

The words we use also influences the way we think, and the way those we talk to understand our message. Words we use are perhaps even more important than what we meant to say.

Some commentary from Salon.com:

So, you know how activists are always insisting that word choice matters, and some words carry a lot of extra baggage even if you don't mean anything by them, and their use has a real cultural impact, even if you don't notice it? And how whenever they do that, they're widely dismissed as free speech-hating P.C. whiners who need to get a life? Yeah. Turns out they might be onto something.

The verdict is out in the case of numerous media/entertainment companies versus an ISP over in australia.

The entertainment companies wanted a ruling that an ISP is responsible for the actions of their customers - so they sued an ISP for "allowing copyright infringement to occur".

Now, we can't have that. If someone breaks copyright then they should be responsible for their own actions, not their ISP, not the mail service, not the maker of the fax machine, not the people who built a photo sharing website.

Commonsense prevailed, and the judge ruled in favour of the ISP. The entertainment companies now must pay the ISPs legal costs.

I've picked some of that commonsense from within the judge's ruling:

In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the user of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement.

On the incorrect use of the word "theft" to describe copyright infringment:

From http://eyeofthefish.org/why-does-national-hate-trees/

“The Select Committee reported back to the Minister earlier this week in favour of removing urban tree protection, despite pleading from submitters. If this goes ahead, Local Councils will be prohibited from being able to introduce or enforce general urban tree protection at all. It is expected that the government will put this Bill through the final parliamentary process as soon as Thursday 27th August, but no later than 1st October 2009 after which it would become law. If passed, all NZ Councils will be prohibited from introducing urban tree protection rules from the date the law is passed and all Councils with existing rules will be required to phase them out by January 2012.“

Here's a keynote from a conference a couple years ago - by leader of the Swedish political party, the Pirate Party.

I met Rick earlier at a dinner earlier that same week.

He does represent the furthest view in favour of rights of the fans. (and you'll find nearly zero artists who aren't fans of someone else and also "consume" more than they produce)

I see the polar opposite view gets a lot of press time. That's the idea that all rights belong to the creator record label copyright holder, nothing to fans, to the point of denying critique, or claiming even subtle inspiration by another work needs permission.

Mainstream media (outside Sweden) seldom gives time to Rick's view point.

My own opinion is somewhere in the middle, but please do listen to the keynote, a short 15 minutes, as he has good points to make.

video released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 licence.

Copyright Regime vs. Civil Liberties
Rick Falkvinge, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party and the international politicized pirate movement, talks about the rise and success of pirates, and why pirates are necessary in today's politics. He'll also outline the next steps in the pirates' strategy to change global copyright laws.

A report from Creative Freddom that APRA is telling its members that 'copyright is under attack'.

APRA says:

There is clear evidence that a campaign is underway to change copyright law in favour of users, diluting creators’ rights and threatening future royalties for APRA members. This is not just in NZ; copyright is also under attack internationally from ISPs and user groups.

Whenever apra says "users" i'm pretty they are actually referring to "fans" - and they seem really concerned that new copyright law might give fans rights such as a right to a fair trial. Copyright Infringement is against the law, and this has not changed with recent law changes.

What's really happening is lobbying groups pushing for legislation that removes citizens' rights, fans included. The Draconian "section 92a" meant you could be disconnected from the internet based only on acucsations with minumum standard of evidence required. Very similar laws passed in France this week.

The phrase "Internet users" needs better recognition too -- hands up if you're not an internet user? Do you know many businesses that aren't internet users? how about charities? hospitals? libraries? musicians? We are all internet users

Child porn threat used to push S92A | computerworld.co.nzSource: computerworld.co.nzWaikato University's weekly Student Union magazine Nexus reports that United Video and other video rental stores in Hamilton are using the threat of child pornography to get customers to sign a petition in favour of Section 92A of New Zealand's new copyright law.

a report from Waikato's student magazine:

Supporters of the controversial "guilt upon association" copyright law have been asking people to sign a petition in favour of the law, claiming it is about controlling child pornography.

Several United Video and other video rental stores in Hamilton are circulating a petition, asking that people agree to the statement "that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) should... [agree] to terminate the internet accounts of persistent infringers of copyright law."

But staff at the video stores have been telling customers that the petition is about stopping child pornography. Staff at United Video Dinsdale could be overheard last weekend telling customers that the petition was about stopping "illegal downloads online" and "especially kiddy porn." They were unclear about what the law being referred to actually was or what the petition addressed. When staff called upon the manager, Sue, to clarify the petition, she also said that the law was about stopping illegal downloads,

"Particularly child porn," she said.

read more

What the amendment actually does is make an ISP liable is they do not have a policy of disconnecting those that repeatedly infringe copyright. Do they imagine someone is going to use the copyright laws and claim they own the copyright on some child rape videos!!??

Scoop: Copyright issue: Select Committee got it rightSource: www.scoop.co.nzBaddeley says ISPs are being placed in a terrible position

“Under Section 92A We’ll be damned if we do and damned if we don't. We'll be faced with dealing with an accusation, not proven, of a copyright infringement and making a very difficult judgment call. If we decide in favour of our customers...

Summary of Submissions Received About ACTA | Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement | Intellectual PropSource: www.med.govt.nzConsiders that ACTA has real potential to improve the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in major markets around the world and to shift the international debate on intellectual property rights in favour of international cooperation and strong enforcement standards.